![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because GiveDirectly has received serious review coverage (from GiveWell), they are in partnership with Innovations for Poverty Action, and they have received mentions in blogs and media ( National Public Radio, Time Magazine, Center for Global Development blog, etc.). — Vipul ( talk) 16:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The situation is the same on all the articles for GiveWell's recommended charities. The editor Vipul (or some of the editors who he pays to edit articles) have cluttered these articles with infodumps directly from the GiveWell website, so that the vast majority of references are to this one site. The articles are now filled with unnecessary tables and numbers. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a GiveWell clone. I edited these articles so that they'd be succinct summaries - appropriate to the notability of small nonprofits. Then Davidcpearce undid all my revisions. I want to avoid an edit war here, but I think it's clear that these articles need cleanup. Full disclosure: Vipul, Dave, and I all have connections to the effective altruism movement (though Dave is the most blatant with his pro-EA agenda in editing). Lrieber ( talk) 00:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Moved here from the body of the article.
Sections like this are not encyclopedic. Fans and conflicted editors sometimes add sections like this to articles, modelling it on what companies and organizations do on their own websites. Wikipedia articles are not proxies for organization's websites.
Moved here, as perhaps encyclopedic content can be generated from some of these.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
-- Jytdog ( talk) 18:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Does having {{ COI}} on this page make sense? I don't think Riceissa or Vipul technically ever had a conflict of interest with GiveDirectly—as far as I can tell, they're not employed by GiveDirectly, related to an employee of GiveDirectly, etc. It looks like the article is also a lot better than it was back when the COI was added, and it looks like the cleanup related to NPOV concerns has been completed. — Enervation ( talk) 22:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
i want grants Philip sakayeye ( talk) 21:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because GiveDirectly has received serious review coverage (from GiveWell), they are in partnership with Innovations for Poverty Action, and they have received mentions in blogs and media ( National Public Radio, Time Magazine, Center for Global Development blog, etc.). — Vipul ( talk) 16:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The situation is the same on all the articles for GiveWell's recommended charities. The editor Vipul (or some of the editors who he pays to edit articles) have cluttered these articles with infodumps directly from the GiveWell website, so that the vast majority of references are to this one site. The articles are now filled with unnecessary tables and numbers. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a GiveWell clone. I edited these articles so that they'd be succinct summaries - appropriate to the notability of small nonprofits. Then Davidcpearce undid all my revisions. I want to avoid an edit war here, but I think it's clear that these articles need cleanup. Full disclosure: Vipul, Dave, and I all have connections to the effective altruism movement (though Dave is the most blatant with his pro-EA agenda in editing). Lrieber ( talk) 00:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Moved here from the body of the article.
Sections like this are not encyclopedic. Fans and conflicted editors sometimes add sections like this to articles, modelling it on what companies and organizations do on their own websites. Wikipedia articles are not proxies for organization's websites.
Moved here, as perhaps encyclopedic content can be generated from some of these.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
-- Jytdog ( talk) 18:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Does having {{ COI}} on this page make sense? I don't think Riceissa or Vipul technically ever had a conflict of interest with GiveDirectly—as far as I can tell, they're not employed by GiveDirectly, related to an employee of GiveDirectly, etc. It looks like the article is also a lot better than it was back when the COI was added, and it looks like the cleanup related to NPOV concerns has been completed. — Enervation ( talk) 22:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
i want grants Philip sakayeye ( talk) 21:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)